Army Guy Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Yes that's valid... but as I said people are benefiting from this too. The government not taking population growth into account seems mind-numbingly stupid. And saying what drives this is not the same as saying there's no rationale for it. Indeed there is. 2. What % of posts I see on social media puts forward an economic case vs a picture of a guy in a turban with a line through it ? Your idea that immigrants make the economy worse... you didn't provide a cite here either, instead you just assume the audience knows it's true right ? 3. Why ? 4. At least you admit someone is benefitting... 1. There will always be persons that will benefit form all governmental policies, The government not taking into account all the pros and cons of the problem seems to be a pattern, which leads to the question what else have they not fully researched or tested theories on... Which has also lead to the government not finding the seat spot that would allow for infra structure growth, and much need population growth, plus the fact why they did not research why population growth in Canada is declining and what is the solution to that problem...and combine the two... 2. I think blaming immigration on the guy in the turban, is lazy, a quick way to explain all of the problems with our immigration....that being said, it does play a small role, many cultures such as Muslim clash with our culture moral values, they do not want to fit in to our culture but rather import their culture here...lets take Palestinian refugees for instance... 3. There are many reasons that make our economy worse...but some of them can be directly traced back to our huge immigration/ refugee numbers, housing is simple math if we are only building 400,000 new homes a year, and bring 1.5 million people and do this for 5 plus years, there is going to create a massive shortage...supply and demand dictate the price... Infra structure deficits has always been a huge problem made worse with the massive immigration/ refugee / temporary workers/ students which account for millions of people over a short period of time...one would think that with all these new immigrants we would be able to build more infra structure, have more doctors , nurses etc....but it does not seem to be the case, what i have noticed is that we have a multi spectrum of immigrants in hospitality services, fast food restaurants, and more entrepreneurs, but lacking in doctors , nurses, etc.. I found this written by AI...my other sources lean to much on the right side of the spectrum...while Canada needs immigration, we do need to find a balance or at least a break in order for the government to invest in infra structure, and critical jobs, such as health care, construction. etc... Infrastructure Strain (Short-Term): Rapid increases in population, driven by high numbers of permanent and non-permanent residents (NPRs), have intensified demand for housing, healthcare, and transportation, particularly in major cities. This has contributed to increased housing prices, rents, and longer wait times for public services. Policy Adjustments: Recognizing the strain on infrastructure, the Canadian government initiated a "right-sizing" of immigration targets, focusing on reducing the number of non-permanent residents to allow infrastructure to "catch up". Statistique Canada +6 WHY....If we don't allow for a slow down the deficit is only going to keep growing...the government is already behind the 8 ball on growing infra structure....with out massive investments it is not going to get better...High speed rail is not going to fix any of that... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Michael Hardner Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 49 minutes ago, Army Guy said: 1. There will always be persons that will benefit form all governmental policies, The government not taking into account all the pros and cons of the problem seems to be a pattern, which leads to the question what else have they not fully researched or tested theories on... Which has also lead to the government not finding the seat spot that would allow for infra structure growth, and much need population growth, plus the fact why they did not research why population growth in Canada is declining and what is the solution to that problem...and combine the two... 2. I think blaming immigration on the guy in the turban, is lazy, a quick way to explain all of the problems with our immigration....that being said, it does play a small role, many cultures such as Muslim clash with our culture moral values, they do not want to fit in to our culture but rather import their culture here...lets take Palestinian refugees for instance... 3. There are many reasons that make our economy worse...but some of them can be directly traced back to our huge immigration/ refugee numbers, housing is simple math if we are only building 400,000 new homes a year, and bring 1.5 million people and do this for 5 plus years, there is going to create a massive shortage...supply and demand dictate the price... Infra structure deficits has always been a huge problem made worse with the massive immigration/ refugee / temporary workers/ students which account for millions of people over a short period of time...one would think that with all these new immigrants we would be able to build more infra structure, have more doctors , nurses etc....but it does not seem to be the case, what i have noticed is that we have a multi spectrum of immigrants in hospitality services, fast food restaurants, and more entrepreneurs, but lacking in doctors , nurses, etc.. I found this written by AI...my other sources lean to much on the right side of the spectrum...while Canada needs immigration, we do need to find a balance or at least a break in order for the government to invest in infra structure, and critical jobs, such as health care, construction. etc... Infrastructure Strain (Short-Term): Rapid increases in population, driven by high numbers of permanent and non-permanent residents (NPRs), have intensified demand for housing, healthcare, and transportation, particularly in major cities. This has contributed to increased housing prices, rents, and longer wait times for public services. Policy Adjustments: Recognizing the strain on infrastructure, the Canadian government initiated a "right-sizing" of immigration targets, focusing on reducing the number of non-permanent residents to allow infrastructure to "catch up". Statistique Canada +6 WHY....If we don't allow for a slow down the deficit is only going to keep growing...the government is already behind the 8 ball on growing infra structure....with out massive investments it is not going to get better...High speed rail is not going to fix any of that... Thoughtful post, thanks. I'm also in favour of reducing immigration for housing, but it's not just immigration at the root of this. Other countries saw housing increases too, with no significant change in immigration It seems that the ultimate goal of this is to increase wealth for homeland Canadians, but let's include other solutions too like raising the minimum wage. https://tinyurl.com/yc3mf44m 1 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
CdnFox Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Thoughtful post, thanks. I'm also in favour of reducing immigration for housing, but it's not just immigration at the root of this. Other countries saw housing increases too, with no significant change in immigration It seems that the ultimate goal of this is to increase wealth for homeland Canadians, but let's include other solutions too like raising the minimum wage. https://tinyurl.com/yc3mf44m Immigration in excess of our new housing builds is the primary driver. Actually i'll rephrase that, population growth is. But at the moment that all comes from immigration Sure there are other factors. But that's the number one by far. We let three people in, we build 2 homes, and guess what happens to pricing. That's predictable. We can have as much immigration as we have new infrastructure in the way of homes, food production, medical etc. Any more than that creates severe upwards pressure on inflation and a host of other problems. From that perspective I guess you could say it's not that we have an immigration problem, it's more that we have a failure to build infrastructure problem. But reducing immigration is by far and away the fastest and easiest way to address the issue 1 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Michael Hardner Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: But reducing immigration is by far and away the fastest and easiest way to address the issue Agreed. I also would like to see National program to reduce the wealth Gap, and increase incomes for the bottom 2/3 of the population Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
CdnFox Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said: Agreed. I also would like to see National program to reduce the wealth Gap, and increase incomes for the bottom 2/3 of the population What would that program look like? The only sustainable way I've ever heard of to do that is to create more opportunity for the poor (and i'm using the word "poor" a little loosely, so lets just say that means the "lower income earners" or the like) And the only way you provide more opportunity for the poor is through better access to value-added education that equips them to sell their skills or knowledge for higher money than they're making now, and/or To substantially improve the economy so that there are more higher paying jobs that people can qualify for and to reduce people's Reliance on low-skilled jobs as permanent careers I don't know if you could call that a program, that's more than an overall strategy. What were you thinking of? 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
I am Groot Posted February 27 Author Report Posted February 27 On 2/26/2026 at 1:02 PM, Michael Hardner said: 2. What % of posts I see on social media puts forward an economic case vs a picture of a guy in a turban with a line through it ? Your idea that immigrants make the economy worse... you didn't provide a cite here either, instead you just assume the audience knows it's true right ? Would you READ an economic case? I have posted many of them by economists saying immigration is not helping our economy and is not going to help with a declining population. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Michael Hardner Posted February 27 Report Posted February 27 20 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Would you READ an economic case? I have posted many of them by economists saying immigration is not helping our economy and is not going to help with a declining population. Yes, I've read a few of them. The economist you quote seem to be in the minority as I recall. " Immigration is not helping our economy" is a blanket statement that is a fringe opinion. I have read what you said about declining, aging population and that part makes sense. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Goddess Posted February 27 Report Posted February 27 25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, I've read a few of them. The economist you quote seem to be in the minority as I recall. " Immigration is not helping our economy" is a blanket statement that is a fringe opinion. I have read what you said about declining, aging population and that part makes sense. Population growth is the most over-rated economic plan in the world. A country can thrive with a stable or even a declining population, if the underlying foundations are good. You just need good human capital and reasonable laws. "The good life" is not just rampant growth aggregates, people care about quality of life and the lifestyle they get to have. Mass immigration has been happening for a couple decades now, Europe is quite ahead of us there. Can you name one country that has ever mass immigrated its way to prosperity? 66% of recipients of Burgergeld (Welfare) in Germany are immigrants. Part of the UK are now poorer than Lithuania or Slovenia. Only 20% of Muslims in the Uk are in full-time employment. I recall Denmark doing a study that tracked (I think) 350 Palestinian men that arrived in the 90's. In 2019, 55% of them were still on welfare, and so were 37% of their children. Total cost to citizens was like $1 million per man. In Sweden, only a fraction of refugees get jobs. Nothing wrong with immigration, per se. But it has to be good, productive, growth-driving, attracting the best & brightest, most hard-working ones to benefit a nation. That is not what's happening. A wealthy, happy population makes more babies. 👶 🍼 1 Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Goddess Posted February 27 Report Posted February 27 (edited) If a country wants to virtue-signal by taking in mainly disabled & mentally ill refugees and elderly people and people from low-trust countries where scamming and theft is viewed as the clever way to survive, that's fine. But don't try to pass it off as an economic plan. Edited February 27 by Goddess 1 Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
I am Groot Posted February 28 Author Report Posted February 28 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, I've read a few of them. The economist you quote seem to be in the minority as I recall. " Immigration is not helping our economy" is a blanket statement that is a fringe opinion. I disagree. The old belief that immigration 'helps our economy' is simply based on an increased GDP. Yes, if you bring in half a million more people, your GDP gets bigger. No one disputes that. But is it helpful in the ways that matter to ordinary people? It might help the bottom line of some oligopolies with little competition. They'll get more customers. But how does that help the rest of us if it also means they get to hire very cheap employees and keep wages depressed? I guess the point I mean is it increases the size of the economy, but does it make it better for us? Does it make us richer? Does it make the government better off, especially if a substantial number of the newcomers will not be paying taxes due to a progressive tax system? Because when that happens, you're importing more people to take care of without a countervailing increase in taxes. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Michael Hardner Posted February 28 Report Posted February 28 (edited) 33 minutes ago, I am Groot said: 1. But is it helpful in the ways that matter to ordinary people? 2. But how does that help the rest of us if it also means they get to hire very cheap employees and keep wages depressed? 3. Does it make the government better off, especially if a substantial number of the newcomers will not be paying taxes. 1. Yes lots of examples. 2. Demand side increases, more profits for hiring companies. 3. Targeted immigration brings in people who pay taxes... Added: this means jobs for people who provide goods and services to the newcomers. Nor TFWs, not refugees. Edited February 28 by Michael Hardner Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
I am Groot Posted February 28 Author Report Posted February 28 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Yes lots of examples. Give me some. 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. Demand side increases, more profits for hiring companies. I do not care about profits for hiring companies. I doubt the average Canadian does either. Especially when those profits came at our expense. 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: 3. Targeted immigration brings in people who pay taxes... We don't do this and haven't done it for a very long time. 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: Added: this means jobs for people who provide goods and services to the newcomers. Who are mostly newcomers themselves. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
CdnFox Posted February 28 Report Posted February 28 On 2/26/2026 at 3:11 PM, CdnFox said: What would that program look like? The only sustainable way I've ever heard of to do that is to create more opportunity for the poor (and i'm using the word "poor" a little loosely, so lets just say that means the "lower income earners" or the like) And the only way you provide more opportunity for the poor is through better access to value-added education that equips them to sell their skills or knowledge for higher money than they're making now, and/or To substantially improve the economy so that there are more higher paying jobs that people can qualify for and to reduce people's Reliance on low-skilled jobs as permanent careers I don't know if you could call that a program, that's more than an overall strategy. What were you thinking of? @Michael Hardner, you got pretty quiet when i asked what that program would look like. Why's that? Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
I am Groot Posted March 5 Author Report Posted March 5 (edited) From Matthew Crawford Edited March 5 by I am Groot Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Michael Hardner Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 On 2/27/2026 at 9:16 PM, I am Groot said: 1. Give me some. I do not care about profits for hiring companies. I doubt the average Canadian does either. Especially when those profits came at our expense. 2. We don't do this and haven't done it for a very long time. 3. Who are mostly newcomers themselves. 1. 2. 3. I'm starting to sense that this conversation might be going sideways. Point a) - You have added a new category of stakeholder that you call "newcomers". So if I point out that something benefits working Canadians, you might now be able to state that - no - it only benefits 'newcomers'. Point b) - You seem to be claiming that there is absolutely no economic benefit for working Canadians. I have pointed out that demand for goods and services increase, and surely you don't need me to explain why this provides an economic benefit to working Canadians do you ? Note that I am not saying 'net economic benefit', but instead 'cash in their pocket'. That's all I am saying. The 'net economic benefit' discussion is not what I'm intending to have here, I am just pointing out that there are some winner. We had the 'net economic benefit' discussion in the past, which is a huge topic that requires us citing economists who disagree with each other and that is where that discussion went. Point c) - If large Canadian companies make money, then 'Canada' makes money. Let's not muddy the waters on that. I feel that we've probably discussed this as far as it will go, but as I have pointed out in the past I appreciate your perspective and you carry yourself (generally) well in these discussions, especially when you avoid demonizing actors in the economic game. You have changed my mind on things. Cheers. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
I am Groot Posted March 6 Author Report Posted March 6 9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. 2. 3. I'm starting to sense that this conversation might be going sideways. Point a) - You have added a new category of stakeholder that you call "newcomers". So if I point out that something benefits working Canadians, you might now be able to state that - no - it only benefits 'newcomers'. Are you trying to suggest I should be grateful that bringing in lots of immigrants benefits... immigrants? Because I don't give a damn about that. Nor, I would suggest, do the great majority of other Canadians. 9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Point b) - You seem to be claiming that there is absolutely no economic benefit for working Canadians. I have pointed out that demand for goods and services increase, and surely you don't need me to explain why this provides an economic benefit to working Canadians do you ? If we were careful with our immigration, it would provide a benefit. We're not. Yes, it increases the demand for goods and services. And then that leads to more jobs filled with immigrants. Again, how does that benefit people already here? It's Canadians I care about, not newcomers, not foreigners. 9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Point c) - If large Canadian companies make money, then 'Canada' makes money. Let's not muddy the waters on that. Given how badly our tax system works, I have considerable doubt about that. I am not of the school of thought that says 'if it's good for General Motors, it's good for America/Canada". I realize that line of thought is typically conservative, but I am not a typical conservative. I don't see what small benefits we get out of higher profits for oligopolies offsetting the lower wages, higher housing costs, overloaded infrastructure, and difficulty of accessing healthcare for the rest of us. And, of course, in addition to the economic costs associated with bringing in so many poor people, there is the social costs of the breakdown of the sense of shared identity that makes up a nation. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Michael Hardner Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 15 hours ago, I am Groot said: 1. Are you trying to suggest I should be grateful that bringing in lots of immigrants benefits... immigrants? 2. And then that leads to more jobs filled with immigrants. 3. Given how badly our tax system works, I have considerable doubt about that. I am not of the school of thought that says 'if it's good for General Motors, it's good for America/Canada". I realize that line of thought is typically conservative, but I am not a typical conservative. I don't see what small benefits we get out of higher profits for oligopolies offsetting the lower wages, higher housing costs, overloaded infrastructure, and difficulty of accessing healthcare for the rest of us. And, of course, in addition to the economic costs associated with bringing in so many poor people, there is the social costs of the breakdown of the sense of shared identity that makes up a nation. 1. All right then. What do you want to do? You want to measure by? How many years someone's been in Canada? Because the Canadian economy designed to benefit Canadian citizens. Even then, I'm sure that a growing economy helps so-called old school Canadians. Of course it's impossible to find metrics around that, because.. what would that even look like? 2. You are loading the dice on your argument here. Lots of Canadians who have been here for generations benefit from more people being here. Again, I'm not arguing net benefit overall. Putting an empirical argument around that would be difficult if not impossible. 3. No, you're not conservative. You're NDP. Who exactly are you worried about then? One Canadian businesses make money, Canadians overall make money. Even the NDP believes that there is some level of trickle down But again, you are loading the dice. It would be impossible for me to find a survey or a study that looked at, for example, second generation canadians and how they have benefited over the last 20 years. Anecdotally, I have lots of examples, and even examples of groups of people. What about home builders? What about renovators? I know lots of people who did that for a living and none of them are first generation or even second generation I think. Real estate agents, people involved in providing goods and services for new homes. Do I have to survey the race of a Bell repairman who comes to my house to prove it to you? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
I am Groot Posted March 7 Author Report Posted March 7 (edited) 10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. All right then. What do you want to do? I want to stop importing poor people. I want to stop importing people with values and cultures that hate ours. The only people I want to bring in are people who will earn at least the median income and who are truly interested in integrating with our own culture and values. And I want those numbers below 100k. 10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Even then, I'm sure that a growing economy helps so-called old school Canadians. Of course it's impossible to find metrics around that, because.. what would that even look like? We could start with GDP per capita. We could add things like standard of living, disposable income, affordability of food and housing, and availability of decent jobs. If all of that is going down, then we're not being helped. 10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. You are loading the dice on your argument here. Lots of Canadians who have been here for generations benefit from more people being here. Again, I'm not arguing net benefit overall. If you're not arguing net overall, then what's the argument about? I'm sure some people, like the owners of oligopolies, benefit. I'm just saying the Canadian people do not. Your argument, remember, was not that certain or some Canadians benefited, but that 'working Canadians' as a group benefited. And I don't see it. 10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 3. No, you're not conservative. You're NDP. No, I'm a classical liberal. Who would cut welfare and social welfare services to the bone for anyone healthy, and make them inaccessible to those not born in Canada. If you can't support yourself here without my help, then go home. That's what people used to do before social welfare programs, you know. 10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Who exactly are you worried about then? The country going bankrupt as it is overrun by third-world men who will then get violent and turn us into South Africa 10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Do I have to survey the race of a Bell repairman who comes to my house to prove it to you? I haven't seen a repairman or service person in the stores for either Bell or Rogers in ten years who was white or spoke without an accent. I'd like to kidnap you, throw you into a time machine, and send you back to Toronto in 1970 to see what it was like to walk around where everyone spoke your language flawlessly and had the same sense of shared identity. Maybe you could drop by downtown ER waiting room while you're there and gape at the empty chairs. Mind you, if I had a time machine, I could find a better use for it than putting you in. For one, going back in time and investing everything into Bitcoin when it was ten cents each. For another, go back and grab Trudeau the elder and then have him walk around downtown Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal today and see if his immigration changes were a good idea. Edited March 7 by I am Groot Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
I am Groot Posted March 7 Author Report Posted March 7 Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
eyeball Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 (edited) 24 minutes ago, I am Groot said: I'd like to kidnap you, throw you into a time machine, and send you back to Toronto in 1970 to see what it was like to walk around where everyone spoke your language flawlessly and had the same sense of shared identity. You must mean in the Way Way Before Times back in the 50s. In the 70s being hip wasn't just progressive it was already policy. Progressive Conservatives sent me to free school at Rochdale for example. You wouldn't believe what they taught us. You act as if life only got surreal recently, like you just emerged from a time capsule or out from under your bed for the first time in decades. But yeah I guess you've noticed commies and Marxists have long since overrun the whole country. They were pretty freaked out about that in the 50s too oddly enough. Edited March 7 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Michael Hardner Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 11 hours ago, I am Groot said: 1. I want to stop importing poor people. 2. I want to stop importing people with values and cultures that hate ours. 3. The only people I want to bring in are people who will earn at least the median income and who are truly interested in integrating with our own culture and values. 4. And I want those numbers below 100k. 5. We could start with GDP per capita. We could add things like standard of living, disposable income, affordability of food and housing, and availability of decent jobs. If all of that is going down, then we're not being helped. 6. If you're not arguing net overall, then what's the argument about? 7. I'm sure some people, like the owners of oligopolies, benefit. I'm just saying the Canadian people do not. 8. Your argument, remember, was not that certain or some Canadians benefited, but that 'working Canadians' as a group benefited. And I don't see it. 9. No, I'm a classical liberal. Who would cut welfare and social welfare services to the bone for anyone healthy, and make them inaccessible to those not born in Canada. If you can't support yourself here without my help, then go home. That's what people used to do before social welfare programs, you know. 10. The country going bankrupt as it is overrun by third-world men who will then get violent and turn us into South Africa 11. I haven't seen a repairman or service person in the stores for either Bell or Rogers in ten years who was white or spoke without an accent. 12. I'd like to kidnap you, throw you into a time machine, and send you back to Toronto in 1970 to see what it was like to walk around where everyone spoke your language flawlessly and had the same sense of shared identity. Maybe you could drop by downtown ER waiting room while you're there and gape at the empty chairs. 13. Mind you, if I had a time machine, I could find a better use for it than putting you in. For one, going back in time and investing everything into Bitcoin when it was ten cents each. For another, go back and grab Trudeau the elder and then have him walk around downtown Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal today and see if his immigration changes were a good idea. Based on a quick scan of this post, it seems insult-free so let me start going through it. Seems pretty hefty.... Here we go: 1. Yes, of course every country wants investors and monied immigrants. But it's not practical to base policy on that. Poor people with potential are the more practical win-win for Canada, ie. people with education, ambition etc. etc. Wealthier than average people (I think) still have a fast lane to get here but there aren't enough of them to make a difference. 2. Well, from past discussions on here we do put a screening question on 'values' in the immigration vetting process. So nobody coming here should be surprised that they're coming to a place with its own values - and values that may be very different than those from which they came. I often point to my previous boss, a devout Muslim who put his pronouns in his email signature at the bank. In other words, there are liberals and pluralists in every religion. But no system will screen out everyone. And 'values' are different than 'opinions'. You might think homosexuality is a sin, but do you think they have the right to exist ? 3. The points system favours these people, I think. There are things we could do to make sure more of them come. We talked about barriers to Doctors for example... 4. Not sure where you got that number. It's less than 1/2 the levels of the Harper years levels and likely not replacement level so you'd see population shrinkage, right ? 5. GDP per capita is still going up, though. Some of the other metrics are useful I would say (you *could* define disposable income, say, a lot easier than what a 'decent' job is). But given that GDP per capita goes up, I think you really should look at the GINI coefficient. 6. You're the one defining what we're discussing more than me. Suffice it to say you're asking whether 'ordinary Canadians' who have been here awhile - say ones who were born here - benefit ? 7. 'Do not' is a blanket statement. I can name off people who have benefitted from immigration and globalization from my personal life if you like ? I mentioned real estate investors, agents and renovators. Franchise owners (who are not oligopolists) who are the people who hire and provide services to the growing populations. Healthcare and Education workers... I mean the list goes on and on. It's obvious, but I am only countering the blanket statement that 'no one' benefits. 8. 'As a group'... I can't say that unless we are talking about the big picture. And then we're entering into the realm of macro-discussions and academia. At that point, we'll be posting opposing cites. I will say that you will find it difficult to find a critical mass of economists who argue that immigration is a net negative. 9. Ok. The protectionist side of NDP policy is what I was thinking about. Point taken. 10. As Peter Zeihan pointed out in that video, the idea of the 'violent foreigner' is a trope, used by Trumpish scare mongerers. They will cite a single crime by a immigrant as evidence that they're right and will reject any academic study on the ground that an egghead liberal did it. 11. So does that mean they don't exist ? Of course they do. So do the others who are hired to service increasing population including police, educators, and renovation people who all are predominantly white in my experience. 12. You don't have to do that, I lived in Toronto at that time. Granted I was a little big younger and I do remember an idyllic time. But let's talk about it... as Carly Simon sang in 1971 "these ARE the good old days". She's trying to tell you that nobody thinks that. Not today and not then. Liberals and Conservatives were at war over the controversies of the day. So what about objective facts ? Economics ? One thing we can say is that Canada and the US were nearing the end of their dominance in manufacturing. The rest of the world had caught up. And gains made by working people through socialist labour laws were seeing their sundown because they could not compete globally. We could enact harsh protectionist measures... basically equating to state control of the economy. Trudeau Sr. tried that with "Wage and Price controls"... it was a disaster. You can't turn back the clock in that way. The alternative is to 'reform' the economy by opening up select sectors to competition, throwing them into peril, while making opportunities for other sectors and also lowering prices. Canada, at least, had stronger transitional supports IMO so you didn't end up with the same types of blights as they have in the US... rust belt etc. As for services... all governments have cut back since that time. Taxes need to be cut to keep the working class spending, and especially to keep the 'investor class' putting money into the economy. In my lifetime the 'Conservative' governments of Ontario built attractions such as Ontario Place, Universities, Science Centres... now they can't afford to maintain these things. When Ontario elected an actual NDP majority government in the 1990s, they DECLINED the chance to create a provincial Auto Insurance provider... to give you an idea of how the winds have blown over the last 50-60 years. In the 1970s the NDP had a policy to nationalize car manufacturing (!). So much for the drift to the left... the so-called leftward drift that people talk about is entirely identity-politics based, and about grand moral proclamations, which have a negligible effect on anything must less the economy. 13. Toronto is still pretty white, when you walk around downtown. Although I was pretty shocked in the 1990s, when I leaned in to listen to a couple of skateboard-toting teens to hear what they were chatting on, in the subway, and discovered they were speaking Russian. -------- The Philosopher Hegel touted the importance of INSTITUTIONS that help people. I submit that governments institute a new Ministry of Well-Being... that is arms length from government, has a guaranteed budget, and is directly accountable to people for providing programs for the mushy middle. They would foster an online culture where you had to be a citizen and use your real name to propose, vote on, and monitor short-term programs. A big part of the failure of policies today is that they seem so distant and unresponsive. Sorry to sprawl all over the topic, Groot... hopefully you can see that we're more on the same page than not. That's it for online time for me today though Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
CdnFox Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 (edited) 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Based on a quick scan of this post, it seems insult-free so let me start going through it. Seems pretty hefty.... Here we go: 1. Yes, of course every country wants investors and monied immigrants. But it's not practical to base policy on that. Poor people with potential are the more practical win-win for Canada, ie. people with education, ambition etc. etc. Wealthier than average people (I think) still have a fast lane to get here but there aren't enough of them to make a difference. 2. Well, from past discussions on here we do put a screening question on 'values' in the immigration vetting process. So nobody coming here should be surprised that they're coming to a place with its own values - and values that may be very different than those from which they came. I often point to my previous boss, a devout Muslim who put his pronouns in his email signature at the bank. In other words, there are liberals and pluralists in every religion. But no system will screen out everyone. And 'values' are different than 'opinions'. You might think homosexuality is a sin, but do you think they have the right to exist ? 3. The points system favours these people, I think. There are things we could do to make sure more of them come. We talked about barriers to Doctors for example... 4. Not sure where you got that number. It's less than 1/2 the levels of the Harper years levels and likely not replacement level so you'd see population shrinkage, right ? 5. GDP per capita is still going up, though. Some of the other metrics are useful I would say (you *could* define disposable income, say, a lot easier than what a 'decent' job is). But given that GDP per capita goes up, I think you really should look at the GINI coefficient. 6. You're the one defining what we're discussing more than me. Suffice it to say you're asking whether 'ordinary Canadians' who have been here awhile - say ones who were born here - benefit ? 7. 'Do not' is a blanket statement. I can name off people who have benefitted from immigration and globalization from my personal life if you like ? I mentioned real estate investors, agents and renovators. Franchise owners (who are not oligopolists) who are the people who hire and provide services to the growing populations. Healthcare and Education workers... I mean the list goes on and on. It's obvious, but I am only countering the blanket statement that 'no one' benefits. 8. 'As a group'... I can't say that unless we are talking about the big picture. And then we're entering into the realm of macro-discussions and academia. At that point, we'll be posting opposing cites. I will say that you will find it difficult to find a critical mass of economists who argue that immigration is a net negative. 9. Ok. The protectionist side of NDP policy is what I was thinking about. Point taken. 10. As Peter Zeihan pointed out in that video, the idea of the 'violent foreigner' is a trope, used by Trumpish scare mongerers. They will cite a single crime by a immigrant as evidence that they're right and will reject any academic study on the ground that an egghead liberal did it. 11. So does that mean they don't exist ? Of course they do. So do the others who are hired to service increasing population including police, educators, and renovation people who all are predominantly white in my experience. 12. You don't have to do that, I lived in Toronto at that time. Granted I was a little big younger and I do remember an idyllic time. But let's talk about it... as Carly Simon sang in 1971 "these ARE the good old days". She's trying to tell you that nobody thinks that. Not today and not then. Liberals and Conservatives were at war over the controversies of the day. So what about objective facts ? Economics ? One thing we can say is that Canada and the US were nearing the end of their dominance in manufacturing. The rest of the world had caught up. And gains made by working people through socialist labour laws were seeing their sundown because they could not compete globally. We could enact harsh protectionist measures... basically equating to state control of the economy. Trudeau Sr. tried that with "Wage and Price controls"... it was a disaster. You can't turn back the clock in that way. The alternative is to 'reform' the economy by opening up select sectors to competition, throwing them into peril, while making opportunities for other sectors and also lowering prices. Canada, at least, had stronger transitional supports IMO so you didn't end up with the same types of blights as they have in the US... rust belt etc. As for services... all governments have cut back since that time. Taxes need to be cut to keep the working class spending, and especially to keep the 'investor class' putting money into the economy. In my lifetime the 'Conservative' governments of Ontario built attractions such as Ontario Place, Universities, Science Centres... now they can't afford to maintain these things. When Ontario elected an actual NDP majority government in the 1990s, they DECLINED the chance to create a provincial Auto Insurance provider... to give you an idea of how the winds have blown over the last 50-60 years. In the 1970s the NDP had a policy to nationalize car manufacturing (!). So much for the drift to the left... the so-called leftward drift that people talk about is entirely identity-politics based, and about grand moral proclamations, which have a negligible effect on anything must less the economy. 13. Toronto is still pretty white, when you walk around downtown. Although I was pretty shocked in the 1990s, when I leaned in to listen to a couple of skateboard-toting teens to hear what they were chatting on, in the subway, and discovered they were speaking Russian. -------- The Philosopher Hegel touted the importance of INSTITUTIONS that help people. I submit that governments institute a new Ministry of Well-Being... that is arms length from government, has a guaranteed budget, and is directly accountable to people for providing programs for the mushy middle. They would foster an online culture where you had to be a citizen and use your real name to propose, vote on, and monitor short-term programs. A big part of the failure of policies today is that they seem so distant and unresponsive. Sorry to sprawl all over the topic, Groot... hopefully you can see that we're more on the same page than not. That's it for online time for me today though You make these statements, you offer no proof, all you offer is ideology. And I know from experience that if anybody were to ask you to justify your statements you'll simply shut up or insult them or call them chats It is entirely reasonable to base your policy on wanting the best immigrants While no system will screen Everyone ours could certainly screen more You haven't made a case for why we should have harper level immigration or why we need replacement levels. We can't grow forever GDP per capita is going down not up. They think it might recover briefly when 2025's numbers are calculated but then it will likely go back down after 2026. There's a crossover year now that we're not renewing a number of the foreign worker and student visas where the GDP created by them remains on the books but the population decreases. Pretending that somehow our GDP is actually increasing is dishonest. Go ahead, name the people that have benefited from immigration at the levels that we've got in your life. You're probably wrong We have extortion gangs running across Canada right now to the point where they're actually declaring a bit of a national emergency and it's all foreigner driven. Many of our gangs are populated by foreigners .That doesn't mean that all foreigners are criminals, but it does show that a large number of criminals like to come to Canada to be criminals And yes, it does mean that you have to throw open sectors and smash established norms and people will be in peril and there will be suffering. That is always the end result when you and your beloved liberals create the kind of problems we see today and someone has to fix them. The other choice is to wind up like Greece, broke and unable to care for itself And I know you won't answer any of this because you're too scared of an actual discussion, you'll just "Pretend" I was on "Ignore" Even though we both know you read this Edited March 7 by CdnFox Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
I am Groot Posted March 8 Author Report Posted March 8 (edited) 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Based on a quick scan of this post, it seems insult-free so let me start going through it. Seems pretty hefty.... Do I habitually insult you? I'll make the response briefer. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. Yes, of course every country wants investors and monied immigrants. But it's not practical to base policy on that. Poor people with potential are the more practical win-win for Canada, ie. people with education, ambition etc. etc. Wealthier than average people (I think) still have a fast lane to get here but there aren't enough of them to make a difference. A small number of wealthy/highly skilled individuals can make a small, positive difference. Add in tons of poor people and the difference is negative. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. Well, from past discussions on here we do put a screening question on 'values' in the immigration vetting process. No, that is what I'd like, but no vetting takes place. Most people immigrate without any interviews or tests based simply on their application form and their 'stated' skills and education, which may be false. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: So nobody coming here should be surprised that they're coming to a place with its own values - and values that may be very different than those from which they came. That doesn't mean they like it. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 4. Not sure where you got that number. It's less than 1/2 the levels of the Harper years levels and likely not replacement level so you'd see population shrinkage, right ? Harper's level was too high, as was Chretien's. We know this from a report from Immigration Canada in 2016, which said Canada was losing its absorptive capacity, that integration was not guaranteed, that ethnic enclaves were growing, and that immigrants were no longer learning local languages as readily as before, and that their economic outcomes were deteriorating. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 6. You're the one defining what we're discussing more than me. Suffice it to say you're asking whether 'ordinary Canadians' who have been here awhile - say ones who were born here - benefit ? Yes. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 8. 'As a group'... I can't say that unless we are talking about the big picture. We are 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 10. As Peter Zeihan pointed out in that video, the idea of the 'violent foreigner' is a trope An American talking about America. Most of their immigrants are better screened, and the illegal immigrants are mostly from Latin and South America. Ours are from North Africa, the Middle East, and West Asia. I have posted repeated cites from Euro governments detailing just how violent these people are. The "open and transparent" Liberal government, of course, refuses to tell us much of anything about virtually anything related to immigration or crime. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: You can't turn back the clock in that way. The alternative is to 'reform' the economy by opening up select sectors to competition, throwing them into peril, while making opportunities for other sectors and also lowering prices. My view on the problems of the economy is that it is caused by government overregulation and overtaxation, not world competition. Witness how well the US economy has done compared to ours. 23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 13. Toronto is still pretty white, The white population of Toronto is between 40%-43%. In the 1971 census, 96% of Canada, including Toronto, was of European descent. Edited March 8 by I am Groot Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Goddess Posted March 8 Report Posted March 8 (edited) On 2/26/2026 at 8:49 AM, Michael Hardner said: Populations are pi$$ed and they want more money, end of story. Fix that and you fix everything. Why are people working harder for less ? Or are they ? Who is angry ? Why ? Why are they pi$$ed? I'm wondering: 1. Do you think there is anything that is not going well in Canada right now? I ask because it seems no matter the topic - immigration, housing, jobs, the justice system, whether vaccine injury exists - your argument is that there is no problem an anybody who thinks otherwise is a CHUD. 2. On the off-chance that you DO think something in Canada is not going well, do you think any blame can be put on the Liberal gov't and their policies of the last 11 years? I ask because you seem to always argue that there is no blame to the Liberals for anything and anyone who thinks otherwise is a CHUD. I had to look up CHUD, had never heard it before you. It means someone who is a far-right extremist, and originates from a movie where CHUDs are grotesque creatures who live underground, who only emerge to attack humans. 3. This is what you visualize a Conservative to be and look like? Edited March 8 by Goddess Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Goddess Posted March 8 Report Posted March 8 On 2/26/2026 at 3:25 PM, Michael Hardner said: let's include other solutions too like raising the minimum wage. There is no incentive to raise wages. Carney said he has consulted with businesses in Canada and they want more TFWs, so that's not going to change. Businesses in Canada are addicted to having government subsidized workers. Their business model relies on it. Wages will not be going up as long as businesses can rely on government subsidized worker wages and the government is happy to provide that. Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.